Talk:Papaya/Archive 1

Varieties
I notice that there are several different varieties of papaya at most grocers, such as mexican, sunrise, strawberry, etc. Some information about the various types may be beneficial to the article. Any ideas?Jstdafacts 22:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of making a more comprehensive list of varieties. http://www.itfnet.org/v1/2016/05/papaya-common-varieties/ may be useful. Also, the current link http://australianpapaya.com.au/about/varieties/ is not working for me, may be broken. Pthesken (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Seeds are not easy snack!?
"The black seeds are edible,": not so fast... one can't just pop them in ones mouth! Tell how to process.

'the black seeds are eligibility' is this a deliberate edit / does it need fixing. comment by passing surfer

Is it true that Papaya trees do not produce if only one tree? Also, when do you remove the fruit from the tree?

The stem of the Papaya is soft stem or wat ?If yes, why its stem is soft?

Many times hermaphodite flowers are setting less than female flower plant problems in some area ,central India ;why it is so?

Abortifacient properties?
Citation needed. According to whom? This is concerning information and therefore needs to be verifiable.

Also, with the medical benefits, can we please get a clarification on whether papaya helps or hurts with the diseases? It just says "Papaya Diseases". That could be very misleading to someone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.17.30.124 (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Paw Paw as synonym?
This is not consistent with the entry on Paw Paws. The Paw Paw entry states that there is only a superficial resemblance between the two fruit.

木瓜 vs. Papaya
No, 木瓜 is quite different from papaya. 木瓜 is literally tree(木) and cucumber or melon(瓜), which may be derived from the  wood-like characteristics and cucumber-like shape of its fruits. 木瓜 tree is quite similar to apple trees in its leaves and flowers. 木瓜 is similar to papaya only in its shape and color. But 木瓜 itself is not edible. It is made into tea because of its fragrance. 木瓜 is quince, more specifically Chinese quince.--Queenmillennia 21:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Papaw? Paw Paw?
The disclaimer at the start of the Papaw page should clear things up: 'This page refers to the U.S. pawpaw in the genus Asimina. In the rest of the world, the name pawpaw is applied to the unrelated tropical fruit papaya (Carica papaya).''' The name "papaw" is given to both the Carica Papaya and the Asimina genus. The Asima is rarely found in place such as Australia, where the papaya is commonly, interchangeably referred to as paw paw or papaw. mangonorth

I was just looking through the entry for Papaya, and it appears to have been vandalized by switching words with human anatomical references.

I've added a note about papaya and pawpaw being different to this page. Rojomoke (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Taste
I have added the statement The fruit's taste is similar to pineapple with a texture of cantaloupe. Though objective information like this is slightly unencyclopedic, the papaya is not very common so I figured the information would be beneficial. -Rolypolyman 01:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It does not taste anything like this. --96.18.64.140 (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Allergies and side-effects
I reverted a previous edit which gave a warning against eating the seeds because they contained "carpine". After reviewing more authoritative sources, it appears that Carpaine could indeed be toxic in very large doses; however, the article already mentioned this. I just went ahead and added a small "allergies and side-effects" section to cover these aspects of papayas, and put the relevant information there. Anyone thinking about using papaya seeds, latex, or fruit for medicinal purposes will be sure to read the warnings there. Here's the more authoritative sources I mentioned:    These articles indicate that, aside from infertility, the most dangerous aspect of papayas are allergic reactions. If I have some free time later, I'll try to cite them in the article. Indeterminate (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason of removing Note 9.....
is due to the contradiction of its fruit naming. However, the paper is worth to be mentioned here, if the author could just add the latin name of the fruit and leave the whatever common name is in Section Material and Methods. Welcome others to further exam Note 8--222.64.27.206 (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That is why >= (more than or eual) one but <= (less than or eual) three identifiers are so important for the precision of any item, substance or record. --222.64.27.120 (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, my this comment is only applying to the management of mass derived variables, which are not as proactive as the ones like humans--222.67.205.145 (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What about taxonomy and reproductive information?
How many chromosomes does it have? Why are hermaphrodite plants preferred? What about the new project to create hermaphrodite-carrying female chromosomes?

http://www.physorg.com/news176386888.html --74.124.187.76 (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Would like to add info
The flowers are also cooked and eaten through much of sth-east asia, they have an extemely bitter taste. I have no links to support this, just knowledge having eaten them alot. is there any objection to me adding this in the gastromny section? --Donotdestroy (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Language Links broken
I can't see what is wrong with the source, but the language links are broken, do not appear in the sidebar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.158.153 (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The source seems to be fine; at least, the links show up with "preview". I'd guess that something is happening somewhere else that causes this problem, but I've no idea what that would be. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleting the interwiki link for "gu" that had recently been added fixed the problem, but it has now been added back and the problem appears to have been resolved. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They appear to be fine to me, but one time recently I was editing an article, and after saving, all the interwikis appeared on a single word-wrapped line as red links within the article at the bottom. I went to edit the problem, expecting to find some incriminating code that wasn't usual, but found nothing, so I did nothing. Upon viewing the page again, the problem had vanished just as mysteriously. Does this description at all match what you saw, or are still seeing? Hamamelis (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that description matches exactly, and I'm not seeing the problem any more. Since the list is so long, I wondered if somewhere there is a limit to the number of such links that can be handled, and perhaps someone has invisibly adjusted that, but it is just a wild guess. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. For some possible elucidation, I found this recent thread of what appears to be about the same thing going on elsewhere in WP (see esp. the entry by Lithoderm at 6:19 pm, 31 January 2012; and last entry by SchreyP at 2:18 pm, 1 February 2012). Hamamelis (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Gosh, there's some dense conceptual material there. It could be interesting to try reverting to that "bad version". Just showing it without installing it as the current version didn't show the problem before, so it would be necessary to be that disruptive. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My guess is that the problem is ephemeral, as it is clear that many others are aware of it, and so would be best to just wait and see (unless it continues happening frequently). Hamamelis (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What are giant papayas then?
66.108.223.179 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

tree?
Is a papaya a tree or merely a tree like plant as in the introductory paragraph. 204.191.88.96 (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe the word "tree" doesn't have a clear-cut definition in science, but mainly refers to woody perennial plants that are, on average, larger than "shrubs" (another somewhat subjective term). Maybe it should be changed to "small tree or shrub", which is what I've seen in many plant articles elsewhere. Hamamelis (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Genome
1) the content describing draft genome publication is only in the lead. this is wrong.  i will create some content in the body of the article that I will then summarize in the lead.

2) the source is really stupid - a badly machine-translated version of a news release originally published in french or something.  There are perfectly good English sources like this and here and this as well as the original paper which is available from Nature, full text, here.  Those sources make it clear that a) this is the first (draft) complete genome of any papaya and it is the first of any transgenic fruit tree. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This section needs re-writing. The issue of being transgenic is entirely different from having the plants genome mapped,but that is not clear here. It need two sentences, one to state the information about the genome mapping and another to mention that the specimen used for the mapping happened to be a transgenic cultivar, so it was also the first mapping of a transgenic fruit tree. I am not sure how significant this information is anyway- smacks of Guiness Book of Records stuff. The transgenic information is given further down the article, perhaps a statement that its genome has been mapped would suffice here.¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.197.248.160 (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Disease and Pests
I've edited the section called "Pests and Diseases". I changed the heading to "Diseases and Pests" because I talk about diseases before pests. I've added two viruses, three fungi and two pests. I looked them up and got a little description on each of them. I also linked them to other Wikipedia pages that I found on the specific disease or pest. Let me know what you guys think.

Thaopazo (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)thaopazo

Use as a contraceptive
There have been some studies showing potential for use of papaya seeds as a contraceptive, perhaps worth a line or two in this article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_contraceptive

CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you haven't seen it already, take a loot at WP:MEDRS basically we need to reviews rather than primary studies for health claims. The article you linked to might need a look reviews citing those studies, but for the time being, there doesn't appear to be anything we can add for content here yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Found one review citing the paper that isn't a zero impact factor journal, though it requires university access. Here is the snippet dealing with papya from the source (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ptr.1320/abstract):


 * "An oral dose of crude ripe paw paw (Carica papaya)seeds in male albino rats caused degeneration of the germinal epithelium and germ cells, reduction in the number of Leydig cells and vacuoles in the tubules(Udoh and Kehinde, 1999). The chloroform extract of Carica papaya seeds, 50 mg/kg/day was administered orally for 360 days to male Langur monkeys. The extract decreased the sperm concentration. Morpholog-ical observations of the ejaculated sperm by light and scanning electron microscopy showed deleterious changes, particularly on the mid piece. The ultrastruc-ture of the testis showed vacuolization in the cytoplasmof Sertoli cells and germ cells. Azoospermia wasobserved after days 90 of treatment. Treatment with-drawal resulted in a gradual recovery and 150 days laterall parameters reverted to nearly the pretreat mentvalues (Lohiya et al., 2002)."


 * Basically, we only have a summary of research to date, which is ok. What we don't have is justification for human use, but rather some content in the conclusions section basically stating that plant based contraception has generally not been reproducible in humans, so the efficacy and safety has not been established. I'll see if I can summarize this content a bit for this page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sources modified on Papaya
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Papaya. I managed to add archive links to 1 1 source, out of the total 1 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add  to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Below, I have included a list of modifications I've made:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120331180723/http://www.harc-hspa.com/publications/TF5.pdf to http://www.harc-hspa.com/publications/TF5.pdf

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Fermented Papaya Preparation
I have uploaded some very valuable and frankly shockingly absent information about FPP on the Papaya page further to over 15 hours of research. My edit cited proven information and numerous peer-reviewed clinical trials. One only need google clinical studies on FPP to see how important it is, and it is becoming increasingly used in supplements worldwide. Wikipedia should have a dedicated section on FPP within the papaya page. My edit was removed from a user with the following comments: (Undid revision 673173693 by Ashweig134 (talk)rv nonsense as unsourced or spam sourced, not WP:MEDRS). I believe that my references are cited correctly. Ashweig134 (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Although research on fermented papaya has been ongoing since 1998, there is no defined mechanism of specific effect or dose used clinically, no direct implication of anti-disease activity and therefore no evidence that meets WP:MEDRS using sources that are WP:SECONDARY. A section may be warranted to show this research activity, but should be posted here first on the Talk page so other editors can review and critique the content and sources before it goes to the article. --Zefr (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Cultivars
Section states: "in Australia, these are called "red papaya" and "yellow papaw", respectively." Not true in my experience, generally both types are referred to as "Paw Paw", I've never seen the "papaw" spelling in Australia. The link points to a Papaya marketing website, while the varieties may be marketed as "red papaya" & "yellow papaw" both varieties are just generally referred to as "paw paw". Swampy 2001:8003:21B8:E700:11BD:4806:159F:61F6 (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

GMO
Can someone in the know contribute to a more complete accounting in this article of which varieties are GMO and which are not? Rtdrury (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate Papaya Tree Illustration?
Upon landing on the Papaya article the first thing I noticed was the weird illustration depicting a papaya plant. I've never seen a Papaya with more than one central bough or trunk. They grow straight up with a crown of small branches around it. That's it. Try searching for pictures of papaya trees online. Even if there were one species of Papaya that grows like that, I don't think Koehler's illustration best represents Papaya trees. (unknown, undated)